It seems that the different reaction is due to a difference in the expectations of a photograph, related to the "accepted nature of photography" that you mentioned, i.e. "to capture what one can see". I hear this often, and have thought long and hard about it.

It's not hard to find magazine articles, etc. where the author explains that a camera does not in fact "see" the world the same way that humans do. (e.g. the article in the Mar '05 Photolife I mentioned above). When have you ever seen the world in black and white? with the velvia-esque colour intensity? with a narrow depth of field? with barrel distortion? in only two dimensions? The list goes on... A good example of one of the "conventions" of photography, is that "increasing blurriness = greater distance". This is not the way things look like to the human eye, but rather is an effect of the lenses we use in front our cameras (technically, this is the way our eyes work too, except that they are always focusing themselves- just try to look at the blurry background when you're looking closely at a flower- it's pretty tough to catch much of a glimpse!). And yet we have all been trained to interpret photographs this way.

Yes Jonathan, The irony of the phrase "the camera never lies" comes to mind. Most people know this is not true, yet I think many still hold on to, and expect, that what we see in an image is actually "what was". This may be due in part to the fact that most film, and now days - digital images, taken by the general public are submitted to mini-labs or processing labs, and the end result is a representation of what the photographer saw and took a photograph of. Just think of all the happy snaps in albums and boxes of prints and files in homes around the world. Not many I would think would consider the effect of a lens, or the way our eye works and the correlation between what we see and what transposes in print. The vast majority of photographers are not professionals nor capable or interested in doing anything other than handing their film or CF or SD card over for processing. I think perhaps it is this stimulus-response (take photo - see print) training that has reinforced the general perception of what a photograph is. Often, the only "abstract" images that most people encounter, are photographer "slip ups", and are quickly binned.

For me, landscape photography is the epitome of "physical, tangible involvement with the medium", when I am making photographs I feel that I am fully immersed in my medium, i.e. the boreal forest that is my "palette". I can see it, hear it, smell it, (get bitten by it). My camera is then like a paintbrush, with which I can take what is on my palette and apply it, with different methods depending on my own creative impulses, to my "canvas" (I'm not sure where the analogy goes here, my sensor? my screen? a print? your screen? all of the above?).

Jonathan, I think one's own training and perceptions may influence each person's interperetation of terms. Differences in language, exerience and culture I'm sure. I can see how you percieve your "pallete" though, and your camera as your paintbrush. Canvas...???interesting

What I have been taught is that the medium is the substance with which you create an image/artwork, i.e.; paint, charcoal, ink, clay, plaster, glass, paper etc and the Boreal forest you mention is the subject matter or stimulus. The implement you use to make the image I have been taught is referred to as the "tool", i.e. brushes, hammer, spray gun, saw, rasp, oxy torch...camera.

For me too, when I take photographs, I have a physical, tangible involvement and I am immersed in what I am doing, but I am not sure that I am "fully immersed in my medium" unless I am developing my prints in a dark room, and using my hands with the paper and fluid in a tactile way - the way that abstract art developed.

Regardless of terms - as I suggested before, it may be irrelevant and impossible to compare the elements of the process of abstract art in other forms - with photography, because of the nature of photography - and just examine the end product. ...time to let what I have been taught morph a bit.

I have definitely found that friends of mine that are artists, be they painters, sculptors, poets, or musicians, have (overall) been more receptive to my out-of-focus photographs than have been my friends that are biologists, teachers, engineers.

That figures. Left-brain oriented people are generally more practical. Did we have much abstract art before the invention of the camera? I get the impression that there's a lot of pressure on artists to be innovative, different, unusual, shocking, whatever, just for the sake of it. The invention of the camera has increased the pressure so much that many artists (painters) seem to have flipped over into complete nonsensicality. And now it seems at least a few photographers are following them .

We have now arrived at the point where most members of the general public can not tell the difference between a painting by a chimpanzee or elephant, and a painting by a supposedly cultured and skilled member of the artistic fraternity.

Will we soon arrive at the point where members of the general public will also not be able to tell the difference between an image from a skilled photographer and one from a complete amateur?

If defocussing an image was all it took to create an abstract, I could turn my entire photographic collection into works of abstraction by simply applying appropriate amounts of gaussian blur in Photoshop.

If you ever sell any of these OOF images, Jonathan, let me know, won't you? I reckon the market could be very easily flooded with similar images .

The irony of the phrase "the camera never lies" comes to mind. Most people know this is not true, yet I think many still hold on to, and expect, that what we see in an image is actually "what was".

In a sense Jule, that probably is still true. The camera really does never lie. Only people lie. But sometimes it might not be clear if the lie was deliberate, which requires a certain familiarity with the characteristics of the medium (the camera), or if the lie was inadvertent, as a result of the photographer not being familiar with the characteristics of the camera.

A typical example might be a picture advertisement for rental rooms in a hotel or guest house. To fit the whole room into the shot (or most of it) it's usually easier for the photographer to use a wide-angle lens. However, the effects of a wide-angle lens are to exaggerate the size of near objects and reduce the size of far objects resulting in an over all impression that the room is much bigger than it actually is.

In this example, I would say the photographer has probably lied but might shift the blame to the camera if confronted with the lie.

Jonathan,I said I'd get back to you with a bit of commentary on your images. As I already mentioned, quite a few of them are really pleasing and eyecatching, but I prefer the more conventional ones such as, Willows and Shadows, Mist & Snowbank, Mountain Bluebird on wire fence, Birch Canopy, Winter Lake Shore at dusk, Nuthatch in early Evening, Evening colour on Driftwood, and perhaps a few more.

You have a curious affect with some of your shallow DoFs which doesn't work for me, such as 'Aspen Leaf after Morning Rain". Whilst the leaf is beautifully sharp with nice, clear drops of water, the rest of the image is too dominant despite being out of focus, The deep shadows and crevices in the rock tend to compete with the central focus of interest.

Other images, such as 'Cow Parsnip stems' again seem flawed because of a few OOF stems which are competing for attention with stems that are in focus. (I'd be tempted to clone them out).

Similar situation with the Aster Stems and flowers where the DoF is so shallow the OOF flowers seem to be about the same distance away as the in-focus flowers. There is thus an effect of confusion between the blurred and sharp flowers which doesn't seem right. Basically, I feel that an OOF or blurred part of an image is sending a message to the brain, "Don't look at me. There's nothing of interest." A sharp, in-focus part of an image is sending an opposite message to the brain. (Lookat me!). Place an in-focus subject next to an OOF subject, both of which appear to be in the same plane, and the eye can't avoid taking in the blurred part within the same glance.

One image I almost forgot, which I like a lot; The Hawk Owl, late winter 2005. That's outstanding, but one small criticism, it doesn't look tack sharp. I suspect your shutter speed of 1/200th wasn't fast enough for the 300mm lens.

Julie, thanks again for your well thought, and well spoken, responses to this thread and the other thread you mentioned earlier. I certainly agree with you that vocabulary is a tricky thing in this discussion, with words like "abstract" and "representation" meaning such different things to different people, and most of the time (myself included) not being used in a careful manner when trying to get an idea across. It's a great point at the end of your post, that sometimes we should forget the theory, etc. and concentrate on the product of our efforts.

"Consulting the rules of composition before taking a photograph, is like consulting the laws of gravity before going for a walk." -Edward Weston

It's great that you mention that "photographer slip-ups" are the main source of abstract images for most people. I couldn't count the number of times that I've had people react to my blurred images by saying they thought they were mistakes (I guess without wondering why I'd post so many mistakes on my website!). Ray (and others), may not like the blurred images, but at least he assumed it was a deliberate choice of mine. This is also why (for a little laugh at my expense) I'm not worried about market saturation Ray, everyone else always deletes their blurry pictures!

It sounds to me Julie, like you've had some formal, or at least more extensive, training in art and art history, and an interest in "traditional" abstract art. I am wondering if you, or anyone else, know of examples of artists that could inform the development of "abstraction" in photography (and for me, in my work and experimentation, in particular).

I am also interested in what you think, as an "artist-photographer", about the different techniques of "abstraction" in photography, some of which I provided examples of earlier in this thread?

Jonathan

p.s. It's great to hear that these discussions have encouraged you to explore abstraction in photography more, I think the more people are willing to let themselves "morph" a little bit, the better off we'll all be...

Jonathan,I said I'd get back to you with a bit of commentary on your images...[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=68317\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Ray, thank you for the feedback, it's interesting to see the images that you pick out as favourites. I love that you picked out "willows and shadows", it is also one of my favourites, enough so that I gave my sister a large matted print of it for a wedding present!

The shallow depth-of-field effect that you mention was, I think, an early stepping stone in the development of my completely "defocused" technique.

It's interesting that you mentioned the "Aspen leaf.." image as an example of this effect, it's one of my best selling images (although I would agree with you that the crevasses, actually furrows in a blown-over aspen trunk, might be a bit on the "heavy" side).

It wasn't until the summer of 2005 that I first started playing around with completely de-focused images, although you can see a lone blurry picture in the summer 2004 gallery, "Wood stove on a rainy day" (I guess they'd call that foreshadowing...).

And you're right about the "Hawk Owl" picture, it was a dark grey day and I didn't have my tripod along on this hike, of the series that I took of this bird (some of which I like the composition better), this is the only usable one. Even for me there's good blurry and bad blurry...

Basically, I feel that an OOF or blurred part of an image is sending a message to the brain, "Don't look at me. There's nothing of interest." A sharp, in-focus part of an image is sending an opposite message to the brain...[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I think it's a crucial comment that Ray made in his last post that, for him (and I think for a lot of people), the message that his brain has been trained to receive when looking at a blurred part in an image is "nothing of interest" (which is almost verbatim his first reply here I think )

My question then, is why? Why are photographers' brains automatically interpreting areas of colour, line, light, and form, that are not "tack sharp" as uninteresting?

And what then, is the crucial difference between an in-focus photograph of a blurry scene (such as the 2nd and 5th images in my second post [a href=\"http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=11235&view=findpost&p=68142]here[/url] (fog and treeline, and sapling and sunset), as well as Tim's photo of stones and water here) versus a deliberately out-of-focus photograph of a "not-blurry" scene??

I think it's a crucial comment that Ray made in his last post that, for him (and I think for a lot of people), the message that his brain has been trained to receive when looking at a blurred part in an image is "nothing of interest" (which is almost verbatim his first reply here I think )

In any style that takes a radical departure from what is accepted (currently) you are basically creating your own world. To make it successful, and eventually accepted (more difficult), you have to live in the world you have created. To do so you have to trust that this world truly exists and you have to find living there to your liking. The responsibilty is really on you, that is what I am saying in short. Don't ask us to like it. Make us like it. Make it inviting, hospitable, welcoming. Make it something we want to be part of. There's little need for talk here. There is much need for images or for work on images although I do understand there is need for discussion as it may be helpful in finding out the boundaries and the definition of this world.

Jonathan, I have seen many exhibitions of a Brisbane based artist - Carl Warner, whose work is abstract - using photography. Warner uses the camera to record the detail he observes in the urban, industrial and natural envoronment. His contribution to Australian Photographic Art has been recently recognised by an Exhibition at the Queensland University Art Galllery, surveying his work over the past 10 years, in conjunction with the publication of a book by the University. Coincidentally, I saw this exhibition today whilst attending a lecture and forum entitled "Is Photography driving the regeneration of Contemporary Art?" at the University. - very interesting!

All of Warner's photographs are quite luscious, textural and are amazingly beautiful when looking at them in the gallery. I have seen most of them over the years, but revisiting them again with more experienced eyes brought with it much pleasure. I must say though, the thing which was quite apparent, was the difference between the 'feel' and impact of each image when standing in front of it, compared with the reproduction in the book and on his website. Looking at the photographs in 'real life' was a far more powerful experience and reproductions just don't seem to do the images justice. Carl Warner

Here is an artist who has continued to be true to himself by expressing the world in his chosen way - through photography, which in the main is abstract -regardless of whether it is 'accepted' or not. He has continued to work on a more commercial basis (to pay the bills), in conjunction with his committment to his artistic practice, and now is making his mark in the history books in Australian Art by expressing the way he sees the world through his camera.

I think it's a crucial comment that Ray made in his last post that, for him (and I think for a lot of people), the message that his brain has been trained to receive when looking at a blurred part in an image is "nothing of interest" (which is almost verbatim his first reply here I think )

My question then, is why? Why are photographers' brains automatically interpreting areas of colour, line, light, and form, that are not "tack sharp" as uninteresting?

And what then, is the crucial difference between an in-focus photograph of a blurry scene (such as the 2nd and 5th images in my second post here (fog and treeline, and sapling and sunset), as well as Tim's photo of stones and water here) versus a deliberately out-of-focus photograph of a "not-blurry" scene??

Jonathan, perhaps it has something to do with the physical properties of our vision. When our vision becomes 'blurry' something is wrong - either there is something in our eye, or we require optical assistance through glasses. We try to overcome blurriness in our day to day lives. It is unnatural to be happy with something which is blurry...so how can we be comfortable looking at an image which is purposely blurry - especially when we are conditioned to percieve that the lens (of the camera) is an extension of our vision. I know this isn't totally answering the second part of your question, but it may help in the understanding of why clearly focussed abstracts are more well received than blurry ones.

Jonathan, perhaps it has something to do with the physical properties of our vision. When our vision becomes 'blurry' something is wrong - either there is something in our eye, or we require optical assistance through glasses. We try to overcome blurriness in our day to day lives. It is unnatural to be happy with something which is blurry...so how can we be comfortable looking at an image which is purposely blurry - especially when we are conditioned to percieve that the lens (of the camera) is an extension of our vision. I know this isn't totally answering the second part of your question, but it may help in the understanding of why clearly focussed abstracts are more well received than blurry ones.

.....ah yes, I have not forgotten all the styles/schools of art in which the subject is not clear, most actually, - but paint, pastel, charcoal etc, do not have the expectations accompanying the medium that photography has. Imagine trying to use "unsharp mask" on a Monet! Julie

Jonathan,I think Jule has part of the answer. A direct perception of blurriness is an indication that something is wrong, with our eyesight perhaps. As a biological species we've evolved and survived through application of skills that depend very significantly on having keen eyesight. Just about everybody in a modern society who has poor eyesight will get either prescription glasses or some sort of magnifying spectacles from the Chemist or Woolies. We might not need them to avoid predators in a modern society, but we certainly need them to read books and appreciate fine detail in photographs.

Another related issue is the way our eyes instantly focus on whatever we are directing out gaze at. It is in fact rather difficult to deliberately defocus what we are directly looking at, although anyone who uses Adobe Gamma to calibrate his/her monitor would be advised to at least try this by narrowing the eyes and sort of squinting.

It seems clear to me that OOF parts of a photograph 'represent' (rather than accurately depict) any part of any scene that we are not looking at directly. In the real scene, all we have to do is change the direction of our gaze and what was previously OOF almost instantly becomes in focus. In the photograph, the photographer has decided what parts are permanently in focus and permanently out of focus, and there's nothing the viewer can do about it. It's simply a technique of directing the viewer's attention to the 'in-focus' part of the image.

If the entire image is acceptably sharp, the viewer's gaze can shift from corner to corner and there might indeed be something of interest in every part of the image, even though there might also be a specific, dominant part of greatest significance.

I really don't think I want to retrain my brain to like totally blurry images, because, if I live to a ripe old age, say 110, that's going to happen anyway.

In any style that takes a radical departure from what is accepted (currently) you are basically creating your own world. To make it successful, and eventually accepted (more difficult), you have to live in the world you have created. To do so you have to trust that this world truly exists and you have to find living there to your liking. The responsibilty is really on you, that is what I am saying in short. Don't ask us to like it. Make us like it. Make it inviting, hospitable, welcoming. Make it something we want to be part of. There's little need for talk here. There is much need for images or for work on images although I do understand there is need for discussion as it may be helpful in finding out the boundaries and the definition of this world.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=68376\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Thank you Alain for these words of encouragement. I agree with you the key here is the images, the process, and the development. The reason I started this thread was to try to understand how to incorporate into that development, an idea of what elements of an abstracted photograph different people find to be "inviting, hospitable, (and) welcoming", and which elements people react against. In the end, I like the work that I'm producing, and I enjoy the process of getting there. If I never sell a print, so be it, it's still been worthwhile in my books.

All of Warner's photographs are quite luscious, textural and are amazingly beautiful when looking at them in the gallery.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=68383\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Thank you for the reference Julie, this is beautiful stuff. And it certainly is "abstract" to my eyes, even as it falls into the "defamiliarization" category mentioned earlier, just taken to an extreme level.

Unfortunately, I think there's a slim chance of seeing a show of his in Alberta! I certainly know what you mean about the different experience of a photograph when you're actually there in front of a print.

Thank you Alain for these words of encouragement. I agree with you the key here is the images, the process, and the development. The reason I started this thread was to try to understand how to incorporate into that development, an idea of what elements of an abstracted photograph different people find to be "inviting, hospitable, (and) welcoming", and which elements people react against. In the end, I like the work that I'm producing, and I enjoy the process of getting there. If I never sell a print, so be it, it's still been worthwhile in my books.Jonathan[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I think that eventually we are talking about developing a personal style, a process which is difficult and takes a long time. That is why I mentioned "creating one's world," which is in fact Georgia O'Keefe's wording for this process. Reading how other developed their style is certainly a recommended approach. My essay on Personal Style is available on this site at[a href=\"http://luminous-landscape.com/columns/aesthetics9.shtml]http://luminous-landscape.com/columns/aesthetics9.shtml[/url]

I also recommend Georgia O'Keefe's writings.

I wish you the best for this process. In my experience, the best road to success is to immerse yourself in your work and pay little attention to criticism. Set high standards for your work and aim for these. Don't listen to the critics. Instead, do what you love. This works great for me, although I do understand that we are all different.

Well...time to bare my soul, and as Alain suggests - examine images ....so I share a few photographs from my current body of work to be exhibited later in the year. I post these with a warning - that they are not your usual landscapes. My landscape is underwater and I have taken photographs of a vortex in water. They are printed quite large, 45cm x 78cm and 60 x 90cm, face mounted on acrylic with composite aluminium backing, so the surface is high gloss to support the subject matter. I have also included my artist statement for this body of work for those who are interested.

Geez! Jule, this is deep stuff....'connecting with one's true nature'.....'the nature of infinity' ......'images without cognitive social referencing'. Not sure what to make of these images. Seems you are trying to express the ineffable.